I tried to click on the link and couldn't understand why it took me nowhere until I realized I had previously blocked the "author" in the past. Probably because I consider it AI generated garbage that pervades the world these days.

W&L could. But why? You have to have the alumni support to do it. In other words, it has to matter to the alumni and they have to fund it, or want it funded. As near as I can tell, W&L's alumni, except for some of the ones that actually played, just don't care. Go to a game and you see player parents and other student athletes mostly. Every time I go to a game here in the deep south for soccer or women's lax or anything like that, I'm about the only non-parent/non-recent player W&L alum at the game. We used to get some alums for Sewanee football games, but that rivalry went away. I suspect this is more the norm in D3 than anything else.

What is in it for the school? Prestige? I guess to some degree. Better campus experience? Most D3 sports are sparsely attended now, whether the team is great or not, especially outside of football and basketball.

But do I think some schools are going to find ways to make it happen? Yes, especially schools who are deeply tied to their athletics. But schools already emphasize sports different ways. From the NESCAC "tips" to facilities spending to coaching. How many D3 schools still share men's/women's soccer coaches? It's embarrassing it happens at all. How many share assistants? How many have no paid assistants? RMC lists 7 football coaches, W&L only has 5. So who is putting in more resources? Should the ODAC or D3 set a limit? That's really my point.

Nothing is even in D3. You just can't offer scholarships. NIL will be no different. If you want to compete at the highest levels of D3, you have to put in the resources already.

Take a look at this analysis of D3 men's and women's lacrosse:

https://d3lacrosse.net/p/does-spending-equate-to-npi-success

"Overall program expenses (includes operating, coach salaries, etc.) for the 2025 women's top 20 NPI teams was $240,483 in 2023 while the overall D3 women's average was observed at $137,809, more than $100,000 less than the current Top 20.

The difference in overall program expenses between the 2025 men's top 20 NPI teams and the average D3 program was remarkable. The mean overall program expense for D3 men's teams in 2023 was observed at $189,891. The 2025 men's top 20 NPI teams, however, averaged $386,208 in 2023, more than double the overall D3 men's average."

Basically in D3, if you want to be good you have to spend money already. NIL isn't going to change that, it just might up the money some.

Money has talked in D3 for decades. It will continue to talk going forward.

Quote from: rmc1982 on July 15, 2026, 02:33:10 PMDidnt know where to post this so I did it here so as to address "the elephant in the room". Whats the liklihood of and the degree to which the NCAA is going to allow NIL for D3 sports?? I know its being discussed at a number of D3 schools, and whats there to stop the schools with huge endowments from basically turning D3 into a full scholarship entity for the kids some schools really want. For example- whats to stop high power and big endowment schools from luring some D1 and D2 talent thats maybe not getting playing time at a D1 or D2 to come play D3 football and ruin the integrity of D3 by PAYING THEM? The whole thing just seems unfair and gives advantage to schools with bigger endowments or alumni with deep pockets. Sooner or later the NCAA is going to have to face this head on or this is going to turn into a bidding war!


"We're completely surrounded-Excellent!...Now we can attack in any direction!'....Chesty Puller, USMC

There are NIL deals in D3 already. The playing field in D3 has always been... tilted? depending on a school's desire to succeed at sports and monetary strength. Just look at the Learfield Cup standings. Other than Wisconsin-LaCrosse, you have mostly elite private schools with huge endowments dominating the top 20 rankings.

Maybe not the big 3 sports, but most D3 sports are dominated by those types of schools. If they choose to find a way to put NIL to work, they will simply continue to dominate, though they may make a bigger dent in football. Or maybe it will be the large state schools, with tons of alums, who can even the field? I don't know. But you can't pretend that D3 is flat playing field now. It's not, and never has been. The only real rule is "no scholarships."

I'm not a UMHB guy, but I did look at these numbers in the past for both UMHB and other programs. Here's what I found in general (there is a difference between the top tier D3 programs like UMHB and the other tiers, that's why the ranges are pretty large).


Less than 50% of those 100+ first years will be on the roster this year. It might be as low as 25 or 30%. This is the biggest "loss rate," so it has the biggest variance. Of those who remain as sophomores, about 2/3rds will be on the roster as Juniors, and about 70-80% of the juniors have remained as Seniors. So, in very broad terms, if you start with 100 first years, you'll have between 30 and 50 sophomores, you'll have 20-40 juniors, and you'll have 15-30 seniors.

The transfer portal does make this a lot more volatile, and I suspect the actual numbers of first year through seniors holds up, but the actual same names is even lower. In other words, you may still have the same general numbers, but that includes a lot more athletes transferring in and out. But yeah, if you have over 100 first years, you generally have 15-30 seniors. How many of those have been there all 4 years given the current system? No idea, and I'm guessing there is huge variation between schools that are heavy with transfers and the smaller, more academic schools that have a lot fewer transfers in general.

Quote from: SierraFD3soccer on July 13, 2026, 08:23:55 AM

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on July 11, 2026, 11:48:09 PMAfter a full month and 100 games... we're left with the top 4 ranked teams in the semifinals.

Did you all see that Gianni Infantino is talking about 64 teams?? And I am guessing they would then have 64 women's teams?? What country (other than the US) will be able to host that many games??

I know Mexico and Canada hosted games, but the US hosted 78 with Canada and Mexico each hosted 13.

FYI apparently there are 211 countries who are members of FIFA, and, with 64 teams, a little over 30% of these teams would make the WC field. 

I think you'd go from one country to a region like this year. But any of England, France, Germany, and Spain could solo host. Not with the same size or quality of American stadiums, but no one can do that. We are nuts with billion dollar stadiums.

Question is, with 64 teams, could Italy qualify?

Off to visit Wesleyan with my daughter today. She's a rising junior and has been touring colleges this summer. So far, I'm happy to admit, all D3 except Brown, which she don't care for. Emory, Brandeis, Tufts, Amherst, Wesleyan with only a hard no on Tufts so far.

Haven't been to Wesleyan in many years. I'll be interested to take the tour!

Visited the Coast Guard Academy with my son the other day since we were in CT visiting family. He's only a rising h.s. freshman, but he is very interested in attending. We will see as time goes on. Lot of improvements being made to campus right now and a beautiful location above the river!

He did not have interest in Conn College but we walked around anyway. Gorgeous campus.

Ok. Being honest and looking at the final 8. When you looked at the Rd of 32 and the matchups, the only team I'm surprised about is Norway. Netherlands/Morocco might be second, but Morocco has been solid for a couple cycles now. This is their second deep trip in a row. Switz/Columbia is close with no clear favorite for me. Overall though, when you look at each 4 team pod from the round of 32, the best team in that pod, in 7 of 8 pods in my opinion, is through.

Someone might point to Germany, but France is simply better right now, so even had they gotten past Paraguay, I don't think they are still standing. Netherlands I think would have gone through if they got past Morocco, but again, Morocco is having a golden generation right now.

Norway is the big surprise. I think they were the 3rd, maybe even 4th, best team in that pod if you played it 100x, but when you have a striker like Haaland, lots of doors open quickly.

Quote from: MCScots2013 on July 07, 2026, 04:12:09 PMMaryville's invitation was unanimous. Either the presidents thought it was a good idea to extend the invitation, or someone played along to get along.  Hard to believe they didn't consult a map until after the ink dried.

Maryville had a good thing going and it's looking more and more like the wool was pulled over our eyes. Would not be surprised if MC is one of the schools looking for that escape hatch and asking the CCS/USAC for forgiveness.

Lots of things are unanimous once people realize they've lost. It does little good to extend the hand to Maryville while someone says "these are the three schools that didn't want you". It's much better for those three schools to say, "Maryville, buddy, welcome to the conference. So excited to have you!" while calling the SCAC and saying "how much interest you got?"

And yes, I'm just pulling 3 out of a hat. No idea if anyone didn't actually want Maryville, but the results kind of speak to a conclusion.

Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 07, 2026, 03:47:48 PMThe SCAC is in a good place with 12 schools - not sure they want a 13th.  Trinity doesn't have a lot of options if they don't - it would be ironic if they were forced to the ASC due to there being literally no other options.  The SAA is looking very insecure at this moment and there are rumblings that there are other schools looking for an escape hatch. 

Honestly? If the SCAC doesn't accept Trinity they are not learning from history. The Texas conferences need every football member they can get, because you never know what is going to happen next.

Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 07, 2026, 03:51:09 PM(1) will Trinity get "St Thomased" - possible except the SAA would need to find another school to retain football bid.  And if so they might *have* to go to the ASC if the SCAC is happy with 12 (or the presidents don't want them back).
(2) another possibly more important question - will the SAA continue.  Rumblings of other schools - plural - looking for new homes.

There's something - something unsavory - going on behind the scenes for there to be this much activity suddenly going on.

IF I had to guess, I'd say the pressure was building when Trinity and Southwestern joined. Some members were not going to be happy about adding those expensive trips. Then the catalyst was Maryville joining the SAA. The "peer group" thought died for necessity that day. I'm sure that had some of the more stressed schools look at the travel line item and question, "why the heck are we doing this?"

Quote from: MCScots2013 on July 07, 2026, 02:55:34 PM"The move splits up Southwestern and Trinity (Texas), longtime travel partners in the SCAC."

This is from the story on the d3football.com home page.  What's the chances Trinity follows?  Is a Trinity/Southwestern pairing a big deal to the schools?

I would classify it as pretty high if the SCAC wants them back.

Some of these teams change conferences faster than drunk 20 year olds change partners in a nightclub.

Well that was a whooping. Unfortunate end. But coming in to the World Cup, I said I'd be happy with a Sweet 16 birth, so I'll be happy with that. It's really where the U.S. is at. We are a top 20 ish type team. We were badly exposed last night. Coming in to the tournament there were concerns about the backline and the goalkeeper. Last night there were major issues with the backline and the goalkeeper.

We had some good offensive spells, just didn't make the last pass or the shot at the right time. Pulisic was awful. Ream showed his age. There's talent on the field, but still not enough to play with the big boys.

I agree Poch will be gone. That's ok. I'm not a fan of managers having more than one World Cup run. It just doesn't seem to work out. The players start tuning him out or something. We will have some gaps to fill, but goalie needs sorting.

Really is a position we've always had in spades, but right now the cupboard seems bare. Going to have to do something with the defense. But I'll say this for the midfield and front line, this World Cup was the most creative, possessive and effective offensive effort I've seen from the U.S. We weren't just counterpunching, we were playing soccer. Now we need the defense that can hold it's own while the offense is able to push forward.

Quote from: stlawus on July 06, 2026, 03:02:08 PM" This decision changes all of that. Belgium, and 90% of the world, is going to want to beat the "cheaters." 

As if that wasn't already the case, come on. Nobody besides Americans have wanted us to win, and that's always been the situation, especially this World Cup.

Again, its not about that. It's about a Belgium team that had every reason to look past this game, at least a bit, and now doesn't. You may not believe in that, but a lot of people do. It happens in every sport, every time. This was a quintessential trap game for Belgium. Now it's a lot less of one in my opinion.